Steineded How sad is this?

CommentsXp Best movie ever!

ShangLuda Admirable film.

Ginger Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

Al The film, almost seventy five years after its release as this review is written, still provides a dilemma that could be endlessly discussed on the human condition. A man is given unlimited power by three deities as they look down on the earth. The mind of Wells is highly visible as the plot develops.It is approached in a tongue in cheek manner and the special effects of the time must have been very labor intensive in relation to the genius of todays computer graphics.The moral questions could employ any philosopher in endless discussion. A relatively young Ralph Richardson portraying an old character gives us a glimpse into the early career of a classic British actor.In a strange way it is a kind of feel good movie and very thought provoking. It may also intrigue the present day viewer as they consider the possibility of the cinema goer in the 1930s wondering how the camera tricks were performed.

Ted Wilby (tfiddler) The previous reviewer is decidedly looking for a religious message, and kind of missing the point of the whole film. He even mentions the point of the whole film, but doesn't realize it. See it for yourself and decide. It's an old move and may be slightly dated in attitudes I'm sure, but it's a product of it's time and I think HG was alive when this film was made. I wonder what he thought of it. It's one of my favorite movies and should be seen on a bigger screen. Great special effects for it's time, and clever I thought. And… be careful what you wish for. That's what the film is about. It fits into an Idea I had of films that are "Almost SiFi," but not. I include this film, Orlando, Perfume, and the Truman Show in that category.

Fisher L. Forrest Wells put a great deal of his hopeful philosophy as well as his despair into this fantasy. He seems to have expressed the hope more than once that if the world's VIPs could be assembled around a big table, peacefully, they could create the conditions for Utopia without too much trouble. In this tale, with Fotheringay's miracles, he shows that even if that could be achieved, there is inertia to contend with. Utopia cannot be achieved in an afternoon, so Fotheringay's impatience defeats him. To give the world leaders time to plan, he orders the Earth to stop rotating. Physical inertia, rather than figurative inertia, takes over, and you can understand the result of that. Fotheringay survives to put things back where they were before "the gods" gave him the power of miracles. Back in the bar where it all began, he sighs "I'll never get the chance (to improve the world), now". One of "the gods" thinks mankind can still achieve Utopia gradually. Even in a sort of despair, Wells was ever the optimist.Roland Young creates a very believable Fotheringay, who gradually changes from a bumbler, with no real idea how his suddenly acquired miraculous power can be used for good, into a man determined to mold the world the way he wants it. Alas, he is a simple man without enough knowledge and must depend on others for advice. Of course, they let him down. Ralph Richardson's character, a retired colonel, now a magistrate, embodies those others. He can't imagine a world better than the one he is in. The cast work is excellent and believable special effects illustrate the "miracles". A few eyes may pop when shop-girl "Ada" is changed in a flash into "Cleopatra", like (Claudette Colbert) "in the movie" as Fotheringay orders."The Man Who Could Work Miracles", as Wells wrote it, is actually his attempt to encapsulate the gist of his monumental oeuvre "The Work, Wealth, and Happiness of Mankind" into a charming fantasy parable, that could reach the average person better than his immense tome on political economy. It always seemed to me that of the three great philosophers of political economy (the other two being Karl Marx and Adam Smith), Wells was the most "accessible" writer. The trouble was, I think, that because he often employed Science/Fantasy to reach the public, many did not take him seriously. Those three great writers trying to design a politico-economic Utopia all made the same mistake. All assumed that at bottom all human beings are decent and caring, if you just eliminate "want". They all overlooked the fact that the folks with the most drive and ambition, and the ability to put formulae into operation, are usually the ones with the least decency, honesty, integrity, and sense of public responsibility. I wonder what old Adam Smith would think of the Enron mess, for example, or old Karl Marx of the former Soviet Union and "comrade" Stalin. As for Wells, I don't know of any attempt to implement his essential "technocratic" Utopia, but no doubt the result would have been equal failure.

Gary Dickerson What would a world without want be like? The answer has been the subject of countless stories, not a few movies, & every sensitive soul's nighttime sighing for ages. H. G. Wells poses the question by having godlike beings give a department store clerk, George McWhirter Fotheringay, that ability, & watching it evolve, as he bounces from adviser to adviser, from the sexy girl he desires to a retired British Army man.The film is a treat, especially for those of us accustomed to (& maybe a little bored by) the Star Trek treatment of absolute power conferred on lowly mortals. I don't know much about the history of science fiction in the movies, but Wells goes about everything (he wrote the script, based on his novel) with the fabulous in mind, while adding purely sci-fi touches, which I won't give away.Fotheringay is no bleeding-heart aching to turn the world into a painless utopia, nor is he a selfish, power-hungry perve, but a nondescript man who takes his time to figure out just what has happened to him before bringing everything to a head. In the meantime, we're given what amounts to a funny English comedy of manners, as well as a peek into a time (& place) where science fiction took a different direction. (For example: if you found out you had miraculous powers, would you tell anyone? I don't think I would. & if you told anyone, wouldn't you imagine the authorities pouncing on you at the first opportunity? Not so in 1930's Essex!)The ending seems Gene Roddenberry-esque, & perhaps the Star Trek creator admired & shared Wells' humanism; but the film shines with neat-o special effects (some cool stuff, for the time) & a wonderful performance by Roland Young. A must-see for those who like their sci-fi earthbound & thought-provoking.(My subject line, by the way, refers to anarchy as a form of government in which there are no governments, just self-government; I don't mean it in the common usage of disorder or chaos. The movie touches on the idea that, without their lives being controlled by those in power, who have a vested interest in people needing money & goods, people might find other ways to spend their time - like, for example, in creation.)